Friday, 03 April 2009
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S POLL NUMBERS
I don't put much stock in political polls. But I do think there is some
validity in the movement of a poll from one wave to the next.
And when you look at the movement of polling for Barack Obama, it is now
decidedly downward. That is confirmed by the fact that mainstream media
are no longer talking about his poll numbers.
Illustratively, last week the Zogby poll indicated that 49% gave
President Obama's job performance a positive rating and 50% rated it
negatively. That was the first instance of a net negative rating for Mr.
Zogby is a well respected, highly visible polling organization. Its
findings usually get a lot of media play. But did you see a lot
of it for these findings? Me neither.
It should be pointed out that Zogby's data show a highly
aberrent result compared to just about everyone else (wouldn't that
generate more, rather than less, media coverage?) So let's look at
some of the other polls and see where they're going:
-The latest Quinnipiac Poll shows Obama at 58% - 31%. A month ago it
was 59% - 25%.
-The latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll shows Obama at 58% - 32%.
Two weeks ago it was at 63% - 26%.
-The latest Rasmussen poll shows Obama at 56% - 44%. A month ago it
was at 60% - 39%.
-Yesterday's Gallup poll (today's comes out this afternoon) shows
Obama at 61% - 29%. A little over a month ago it was at 67% -
What does this mean? I don't know for sure (and neither do you, even if you think
you do). Poll numbers go up and down. But one thing is undeniable: Even
with still-fawning adoration by mainstream media, major poll after major poll
shows President Obama's poll numbers to be dropping.
I'll report on Mr. Obama's poll data again at a future date - maybe a month
or so from now - to see where they are then.
VERY SILLY....AND VERY FUNNY
This comes from my pal Bob. I guarantee you'll laugh:
A woman was helping her
husband set up his computer.
the appropriate point in the process, she told him that he would now have to
enter a password. something he will use to log on.
The husband was in a rather amorous mood
and figured he would try for the shock effect to bring this to his wife's
So, when the computer asked him to enter his password, he
made it plainly obvious to his wife that he was keying in... *PENIS
wife fell off her chair laughing when the computer replied: PASSWORD DENIED -
NOT LONG ENOUGH*
THE NEW YORK TIMES & THE CUBAN DISSIDENT
This blatant demonstration of The New York Times' bias comes to us
from Lynn Davidson of www.newsbusters.org. Please pay
special attention to the part I've put in bold print:
NYT Ignores Free Speech Activist
Yoani Sanchez; Focuses on Lefties
Ever notice the media love to report stories
about people fighting the power, unless, of course, the power happens to be
something the media favor?
A March 31 New York Times
article about Cuba's
Havana Biennial art festival highlighted several artists whose political
statements were in line with the anti-American, communist outlook of the
island's regime, while ignoring prominent Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, who risked her freedom to protest government
During an open mic session at the
festival, the award-winning Generacion Y blogger criticized Cuban policy and the lack of free expression.
However, the Times did not mention her pro-free speech performance art or even
cover it in a separate piece. Instead, most of the artists the paper described
railed against the usual evils, such as capitalism, America and the
Afterwards, the government issued a condemnation
that singled out Sanchez for staging a provocation against the Cuban
Revolution. Fortunately, on Wednesday, Reuters reported the
The (government) statement described Sanchez,
without using her name, as a "professional dissident" and one of a number of
"individuals in the service of the anti-Cuban propagandistic machinery that
repeated the worn-out claims for 'freedom' and 'democracy' demanded by their
The event was part of a performance by Cuban
artist Tania Bruguera, who put up a microphone at an arts centre in Old Havana
and told people in attendance they could say whatever they wanted for one
Participants were flanked by two actors
dressed in olive green fatigues. A white dove was placed on the shoulder of
each speaker in an apparent parody of a famous speech by Fidel
Sanchez then read a manifesto saying the Internet
was opening a 'crack' in government control and further stated, The time has
come to jump over the wall of control.
In the past, this type of demonstration landed
Cubans in jail, or worse, but so far, the well-known Sanchez has just been
denounced by the government instead of facing the same repercussions as the
imprisoned Oscar Elias Biscet.
Sanchez wasn't just some random speaker at the
festival. She is known around the world as an outspoken critic of the Cuban
government. She is frequently in the news, and has won much
recognition through her widely-read blog. Among her many awards,
Time magazine designated her in 2008 as one of the 100 Most Influential People in the World. That same year, Foreign Policy magazine
included her on its 10 Most Influential Latin American
Intellectuals list. She was named one of
Time's Best 25 Blogs of 2009
and has won many other awards as well.
Now, maybe the Times didn't see Sanchez's or
the other freedom protesters' performances during the open mic
session, or perhaps it was unaware of Cuban government's statement.
However, it is strange that a prominent activist using the arts to stand up to
oppression didn't pique the interest of The Grey Lady. Usually, the paper
relishes that type of story.
Instead of focusing on those who actually took a
risk, the Times highlighted such edgy art as a piece showing
Barack Obama as the fifth president on Mt. Rushmore, a parade that
supposedly demonstrated that Cuba is freer than America and
several works that critiqued wealth and capitalism.
The Times was not alone in its cold shoulder,
though. Other than Reuters, the AP and the Miami Herald, Sanchez's
protest was largely ignored by the rest of the major media. The
Spanish-language press showed more interest in Sanchez's
In other words, if Cubans condemn the USA just the way fidel castro would
want them to, the Times considers it a news story.
But if a Cuban dissident risks years in jail to speak against castro and his
regime? That isn't news at all.
Then they wonder why people call their reporting biased....
WALID ELKHATIB, DUNKIN' DONUTS AND PORK SANDWICHES
What do you do when a franchiser suddenly pulls the rug out from
under you after 23 years?
You sue. And you probably lose. Just ask Walid Elkhatib.
Ameet Sachdev of the Chicago Tribune explains:.
Dunkin' Donuts operator gives up franchise in
| Tribune staff
- 10:11 AM CDT, April 1, 2009
Walid Elkhatib refusal to
handle or serve pork has resulted in having to give up his Dunkin' Donuts
franchise. "What is life without dignity and your beliefs?" he told a reporter
in 2007. (Tribune photo by Candice
C. Cusic / July 30, 2007)
owner of a Chicago-area Dunkin' Donuts store has to give up his franchise after
he lost his long-running legal battle with the restaurant chain over his
religious objections to selling pork products.
A lawyer for Walid
Elkhatib said Tuesday that his client is in the process of removing Dunkin'
Donuts signs from his Westchester outlet, but apparently not fast enough for the
Dunkin' Donuts went to federal court in Chicago on March 27 to
stop Elkhatib, 59, from using the company's trademarks and other proprietary
The company's lawsuit came two weeks after a federal jury
found that the chain did not discriminate against Elkhatib for refusing to renew
his franchise agreement because he declined to sell breakfast sandwiches with
bacon, ham or sausage.
Yes, it is true that when he opened his Dunkin' Donuts shop in 1979, he
neither asked for nor got any special dispensation on pork products. But
why would he have asked?
He was opening a donut shop, not a meat market.
When Dunkin' Donuts introduced breakfast sandwiches in 1984, that was the time
to settle this issue. If the company insisted Mr. Elkhatib sell them it
would have been on at least somewhat solid ground.
But when Dunkin' Donuts agreed to allow Mr. Elkhatib to forgo pork products, that
changed things completely.
The company allowed Mr. Elkhatib to decline those
sandwiches for 18 years , and then it
suddenly told him to revert to the original rules or get lost. Unbelievable,
This may be legal in a technical sense. But it is not at all fair or
Walid Elkhatib refused to compromise his beliefs and knuckle
under to Dunkin' Donuts. That shows both courage and principle.
I hope Mr. Elkhatib prospers in the non-Dunkin' Donut incarnation of his
shop -- and has a halal of a good business for years to come.
THE WARD CHURCHILL VERDICT
From www.michellemalkin.com -- along
with the excellent links she provides:
Breaking: Ward Churchill verdict reachedmixed;
$1 awarded for damages
In Denver, the verdict in the Ward Churchill trial
was just read.
The jury found that University of Colorado
terminated him based on his speech, but awarded him $0 for past economic harm
and $1 for current damages.
Caplis and Silverman, lawyers who have followed
the case closely and host a top talk show on 630KHOW, say it should be seen as
victory for CU. Interpretation: Jury found him to be an academic fraud
undeserving of restitution.
Denver blog Slapstick Politics has liveblogging. More coverage at Complete
And from fraud-busting blog Pirate Ballerina, a definitive analysis blasting CUs
Since weve made no effort
to hide our contempt for CU attorney Patrick ORourkes mishandling of his
defense of CU, it should come as no surprise to our
readers that we now lay CUs defeat directly at ORourkes clown shoes.
Churchill did not win this case; ORourke lost it. And since all problems can
be traced back to management, CU is the ultimate perpetrator of this
four-year (some would say 20-year) farce.
CUs Achilles heel has always been its own
sloth and incompetence, in the hiring process, the investigatory process, and
finally, in the legal defense process. CU administrators were aware that
Churchills scholarship qualifications consisted of a few mostly co-authored
screeds on the usual leftist memes, and a masters degree in a bonehead major
from an experimental college, yet they hired him as an Ethnic Studies
professor with tenure. And CU administrators were made aware of serious
problems with Churchills version(s) of history long before the Little
Eichmanns essay re-emerged from obscurity back in January 2005, yet they did
It took the public outrage surrounding that
essay to finally goad CU into action, putting into motion a process that
lasted four years. Churchill had every opportunity to present his case, and in
every instance he failed. His termination back in 2007 was the result, as was
his inevitable suit against CU, the conclusion of which we have before us
Once the initial public outrage faded,
unfortunately, CU returned, to its happy place: sloth and incompetence. During
the trial, David Lane used CUs own witnesses to illustrate those qualities,
and CUs attorney, Patrick ORourke was unable to counter Lanes sallies
simply because ORourke exemplifies CUs commitment to sloth and incompetence.
Perhaps he is a shark feared by medical litigants worldwide, but in a civil
rights case with a very obvious villain (and admittedly a
less-than-sympathetic good guy), ORourke was hopelessly
And so, of course, Churchill won. It is a sad
commentary that CU was unable to defeat a documented plagiarist and historical
fraud, but we consider it the inevitable result of decades of sloth and
incompetence. As others have noted with elegant simplicity, CU deserves
Churchill. The question Colorado voters (and CU alumni) must now ask
themselves is equally simple: Does CU deserve their
"LARGELY ALONG PARTY LINES"
Why can't they just tell us the truth? Why do they lie to our faces?
Here is the beginning of an
Associated Press article, posted yesterday at 7:34 PM, on the roll call
vote for President Obama's budget proposal:
|House approves $3.6 trillion budget
07:34 PM US/Eastern|
By DAVID ESPO and ANDREW TAYLOR
|WASHINGTON (AP) -
The Democratic-controlled House approved a budget blueprint drawn to
President Barack Obama's specifications Thursday and the Senate hastened
to follow suit after administration allies rejected alternatives from
liberals and conservatives alike.
The vote in the House was 233-196, largely
along party lines, for a $3.6 trillion plan that includes a deficit of
Speaking bluntly, that description is a lie.
The American Heritage dictionary (and others) defines "largely"
as meaning "For the most part; mainly."
Thus using the phrase "largely along party lines" suggests that, while most
house members voted along party lines, there was a good deal of crossover
on both sides as well.
But this presents a bit of a problem, since not one Republican voted for the
Obama budget. Zero. And 20 Democrats voted against it.
If the article's second paragraph had any honesty, would have read
something like "The budget received no Republican support at
all. Twenty Democrats broke ranks and voted with the Republican minority,
but not enough to prevent its passage"
Now fast-forward to this
morning's AP article on the same subject. Here is how it starts:
House, Senate OK Obama-friendly budget plans
No Republicans give support for either spending
2:09 a.m. ET, Fri., April. 3,
WASHINGTON - Acting in quick succession, the House and Senate approved
budgets Thursday night drawn to President Barack Obama's specifications and
pointing the way toward major legislation later this year on health care, energy
going to take a lot of work to clean up the mess we inherited, and passing this
budget is a critical step in the right direction," Senate Democratic Majority
Leader Harry Reid said. "Staying true to these priorities will help turn around
the economy for the many Americans who are underwater right now."
No Republicans in either house
supported the budgets and GOP leaders accused Democrats of drafting plans that
would hurt the recession-ravaged economy in the long run, rather than help it,
as well as saddle future generations with too much debt.
administration's budget simply taxes too much, spends too much and borrows too
much at a moment when we can least afford it," said the Senate Republican
leader, Mitch McConnell.
Notice a slight difference? Like the usage of facts instead of fantasy
regarding the roll call vote (which, for the house vote, was just as
available when the first version was written)?
I can only guess why the Associated Press went from BS to reality.
Maybe there was an outcry about the bogus nature of its first article. I
Regardless of what caused it, however, the fact remains that the AP's
first version, the one that went out all over the world, was a dishonest account
which suggested there was a level of bipartisan support for the bill which
did not exist.
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them